So far, it seems the GOP contenders are of pretty low quality. And while I think this will probably make Obama a shoe-in for another term, this isn't good for the republic.
When one of our only 2 major political parties have people like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee, then it is destructive to our nation. When candidates think that abortion, gays in the military and nativity scenes on government property are more important issues than double digit unemployment, sky rocketing deficits, offshoring jobs, and wealth inequality, then it lowers the quality of the public debate, and we are worse off as a nation.
When your most serious candidate thinks that social security is the same as slavery, then something is very, very wrong.
What a shock. Republicans should rejoice that he won't be a distraction to their nominating process. Democrats should be happy they don't have to listen to his egotistical bloviations. Personally, as a rather partisan Democrat I wish he'd stuck around longer. But I find him so repulsive I'm actually glad he's gone. He even had the gall to assert he knows he would have won. What a total asshole.
he would have ran. Good thing his didn't use Huckabbee's line about his heart saying no. Everyone knows Trump has no heart. lol
Both a couple of self indulgent publicity hounds that milk their fifteen minutes of fame for all it's worth.
I did like what Trump said in re to China however, most of his other crap was just that, Crap. Especially his plan to deal with OPEC.
I never watch his show, did he improve ratings with this little stunt?
Yeah right, he knew he would have won. At least he has the lying part down pat to become a politician.
So far, it seems the GOP contenders are of pretty low quality. And while I think this will probably make Obama a shoe-in for another term, this isn't good for the republic.
When one of our only 2 major political parties have people like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee, then it is destructive to our nation. When candidates think that abortion, gays in the military and nativity scenes on government property are more important issues than double digit unemployment, sky rocketing deficits, offshoring jobs, and wealth inequality, then it lowers the quality of the public debate, and we are worse off as a nation.
When your most serious candidate thinks that social security is the same as slavery, then something is very, very wrong.
I agree with the assesment of the "quality" of Republican candidates righ now, however, it is still way early.
On the other hand, the quality of the Democratic candidate IS know and IS very low.
Why don't you give me some of your wealth, WW? I'm sure you have more than I do. As a matter of perspective, I KNOW you do. So, let's see, how about you pay me $1000 every month; I'm sure you can afford it.
Of course, I won't provide FS or any other services to you (that would cost you three times that much), but then you should be right at home with someone who doesn't work for their money...
That said, SURPRISE: I actually agree that some of the "issues" discussed are non-issues in the face of other, more relevant issues.
I suppose anyone who is feeling comfortable with their present lifestyle could feel immune to any repercussions of the consequences of an ever increasing gap.
of ours would want to ruin it by trying to limit a person's ability to earn money and force more equality upon every one.
The strength of this great nation -- and of many others -- lies in its opportunity for individuals to achieve as much as they want and as much as they can. Not just in wealth of money, but in wealth of accomplishment and wealth of success and achievement of goals.
It sickens me to hear people bitch and complain about the "inequality of wealth in America." How every financial problem we have can be solved by taxing the rich and taking away the money they have earned to help out the less successful, many of whom have made little or no effort to achieve any success or accomplishment.
" How every financial problem we have can be solved by taxing the rich and taking away the money they have earned to help out the less successful, many of whom have made little or no effort to achieve any success or accomplishment."
I have no problem with anyone making as much as they can honestly and ethically. However, even that pursuit can cause great damage on families, which in turn society (tax payers) end up footing a portion of the bill.
people who have worked for their monies, I find it sickening that someone (like WW and possibly you) wants to take it away from them - and for what? To feed and clothe the poor unwashed masses who are making the kinds of choices that put them into the poorhouse? No thanks. If the poor have a brain that's functioning, then they can go work for their money like the rest of us.
If you or WW (or anyone else) wants to help the poor who make poor choices, then do it with your own funds. Don't you even think about taking away mine!
"who have worked for their monies," legally and ethically. You make a grand assumption that they all gained their "monies" legally and ethically. I don't, nor do I assume the opposite.
However, the energy behind the might attained by our country came about by two, at times, seemingly opposing forces; sort of like yin and yang. That of our country being built on Christian principles, like Christian charity, and that of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Today, the first force has been eroded, while the second force is being replaced by the concept of "Greed is good," as Kirk Douglas' character in "Wall Street" espoused. Of course, that belief has been around along time. But, now there's no moral constraints on proclaiming it so.
So, I'd have no problem with the increasing income inequity if it was based on the first dynamic, the one our country was built on. But, I'm growing more and more convinced that it's more and more based on the later; greed.
the overall picture, you'll find that the majority of people - the "silent majority" - simply lead their lives, disregarding the hoopla put out by the media or whatever the various governments do. If a law makes no sense, this not-a-squeaky-wheel-because-they-don't-buy-into-it majority ignore it and carry on, just like they have for centuries.
Charts like that make me ask, "Compared to what and whom and when?" And then I disregard them because they have no basis of truth that I can hang onto. They may be a collection of facts (in this case, compared to where in America, not so much what), but they aren't relevant to my and mine.
The poor have always been among us as have the rich. Governments (like Pharisees) do what they will, running roughshod over the country they're supposed to govern. The loudest criers aren't always the ones who have the interests of the poor; they just want the money so they can say "Look what I did!" The chronically poor (not the temporary poor) want you to feel sorry for them and give them a handout rather than a hand up. The rich, regardless how they got it, just want to be left alone to enjoy what they have.
The rest of us in the middle look up just long enough to shake our heads at the preachers of both. We smile quietly at the foolishness of trying to change either. Then we go on earning our livings. We give where we think our hard-earned dollars will be the most use and ignore the rest.
If you want to pay attention to the tooting horns and graphs that have no real meanings, go right ahead. Me, I'll go on working.
"If you want to pay attention to the tooting horns and graphs that have no real meanings, go right ahead. Me, I'll go on working."
That's what the "Shadow Elite" want you to do. Check out the book, if you want, but if you don't wish to figure out graphs that give you the explanations that you failed to perceive, then you may no want to wade through the book. Too bad if you don't. It's a real eye opener.
P.S. You completely ignored my points regarding greed and ill begotten gains. Yes! There are headlines about that, but I also see it everyday in the personal lives of what you call the "Silent Majority."
but I think Dickens had it right: There is nothing on which it [the world] is so hard as poverty, and yet, there is nothing it condemns with such severity as the pursuit of wealth.
According to some on this site, any "extra" money belongs to those who have less.
And here are all the sins:
**Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
**Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.
**Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
**Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.
**Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.
**Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
**Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.
And I didn't ignore your points regarding ill-gotten gains; I read them. I don't feel qualified to remark on them as you presented them. I'm a PROVIDER, Matt. According to the real world, my gains in that realm (however slight) ARE ill-gotten. So how in hell am I going to comment on them?
OTOH, if you look at the explanation of greed in the above list of sins, I'm not greedy at all, and I suspect, neither are many of those you decry.
As for a book, going back over your posts in this line of thread, what book are you referring to?
(How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government, and the Free Market) by Janine R. Wedel
being tossed about. Santorum is an idiot and Bachmann and Palin are not Presidential material. But Huckabee is a good man and would have made a fine President. His "funny" name, his background as a preacher and his unfortunate release of a cop-killer would have been too much for him to overcome. But he is a far superior candidate to many that have run from the Dem side in recent years, such as Kerry, Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, Sharpton and the biggest joke of them all -- Howard Dean.
Obama has been a shoo-in since the day he was elected. His strength has weakened some in the last three years but his incumbency will be enough to carry him to an easy win.
True, but I ascribe it to the self-destructive lunge to the right of the party, and their abandonment of Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Never Speak Ill of Another Republican." OK, maybe that went too far. But it's even more of a shame when it gets the party where it is now: in the grasp of Tea Partiers and other righties who call anyone with whom they disagree a RINO and drum them out of the party. It is "The Rise of the Ditto-heads" that's resulting in the fall of the Republican party, at least in Presidential politics. Maybe the disarray in both parties will lead to the rise of new ones that might, at least for a while, be a bit more honest.
Personally, I think he would have been embarrassed. I would pay for to see him making an ass out of himself.